Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smooth Island (South Australia)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 01:32, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Smooth Island (South Australia)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No third party sources to establish notability. 117Avenue (talk) 03:33, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete. The article DOES include third party references to substantiate it. I don't understand what the issue is. Just because an island is small does not mean it is irrelevant. Sailors travelling past the island will want to know more about the island, including what it's name is, and who owns it. It is notable especially to people residing and working in the vicinity. What is the issue here? Please explain further.Jkokavec (talk) 06:53, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Am I seeing double? Okay, but seriously, both sources seem to be exhaustive lists of islands, neither of which offer significant coverage to establish notability. A website simply listing an island on Google Maps is far from significant. Google news search reveals zero relevant results. As per Wikipedia's guidelines, the only relevant information that can be properly written about Smooth Island on Wikipedia is that it exists - and you'd have to be privy to that information in order to look this page up in the first place. Delete, this article is useless.ZappyGun (talk to me)What I've done for Wikipedia 08:01, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSUSELESS. --Jakob (talk) 19:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nuyts Archipelago (or merge if anyone cares deeply enough). Thincat (talk) 11:46, 21 December 2014 (UTC) (see below) Thincat (talk) 11:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability. Named islands are not notable simply by being named. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:36, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is the First Pillar of Wikipedia, that it "combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers". If something has an independent entry in a gazetteer, it belongs here. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 23:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andreas; also, clearly has the coverage in reliable sources to flesh this out further. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:55, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of coverage there. Small and unoccupied does not mean non-notable. Really should be part of an infobox with the whole group of islands, other than that... St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:39, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NGEO and the existence of sources such as this. --Jakob (talk) 19:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as a South Australian editor with an interest in island, I can provide additional content complete with citations. Cowdy001 (talk) 21:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nom simply made the assumption that there were "No third party sources." As others pointed out, third party sources. Prodding and AfDing a geographical feature such as an island so quickly without any research is not helpful to anyone.--Oakshade (talk) 04:10, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --do ncr am 23:38, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Great deal of new content added since PROD. – Margin1522 (talk) 07:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Almost always when I !vote at AFD it is to keep so I try very hard to be more deletionist. Hence my vote above which I have now struck because it turns out to have been a very silly !vote. The article now has references meeting the GNG criteria and, regardless of that, the island is obviously notable. My apologies. Thincat (talk) 11:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.